To be fair Cam
They didn’t pull the planets into the void
Just the Suns
If the sun from our universe just suddenly disappeared and then reappeared after an extended period of time
Our planet would suffer innumerable problems and might potentially be inhabitable
1 Like
Which would make the planets very dark… 
Fair enough, but when someone says “destroyed” in regards to planets, i think DBZ or Star Wars style.
Hey buddy! 
While not as common, planets were occasionally pulled into the void. If I recall correctly Mellja’s home world was pulled into the void instead of just the star.
1 Like
Ok, but Megaman was inspired by Astroboy who was either a robot meant to replicate some dude’s dead kid, or it was that dead kid turned into a cyborg. (I’m not sure, I never followed Astroboy.)
Now, if it’s 100% clearly and openly stated in the lore, then obviously Kid Ultra is a robot. Kinda like Buzz Lightyear, the toy who doesn’t know he’s a toy.
But to me, Kid Ultra really seems… like a kid. I’ve unlocked a couple of his lore entries while playing multiplayer, and reading them, he speaks like a young boy who’s overly enthusiastic about his nerd hobbies, rather than a robot who believes he is a superhero.
I haven’t yet found a lore entry that explicitly states that he is 100% a robot and never was a human, and I sure hope they keep not stating it openly… so the player can decide at their will wether that character is Buzz Lightyear or Kid Robocop. 
If there’s no sun, the planet dies. Or at least it becomes a hyper-frozen wasteland where no plant or animal as we know it could survive.
I was about to reply before you edited THIS in:
The key words being, of course:
When it comes to cosmology and biology, us humans know very little…
Oooh, so Foxtrot looks more alien-like than Mike? Maybe Mike has no sharp fangs and such? Maybe Mike even looks human apart from the eyes (typical trope that never goes out of style)?
In any case, it was stated somewhere in the lore that Foxtrot looks more alien (although his problem was the personality, not the appearance)?
Agreed 100%, it’s just that I’d assume a bird planet would have life similar to what we know. 
1 Like
Well, you know what they say about assuming things…
Also, damn it, you quoted me before i caught my mistake…
I forget where the post is, but there was official art where Mike looks more like a fish, but is blue and honestly looks nothing like Whiskey.
Ask someone smarter than me where that is lol
Whiskey’s got some kind of piranha gene or something.
1 Like
the state of a planet without a sun is far more complicated then
it gets colder
the shape, mass, weather, gravitational fields, and a myriad of other things are the direct result of gravity
the rotation of the planet and the planets orbit around the sun
no sun means no gravity
no gravity means no restriction on the energy inside the planets core
planet goes boom
Star Wars/DBZ style
theoretically
Thanks to @blainebrossart1 as i completly forgot about this
Im actually confused reading into the lore now
the term darkening, in relation to Melka’s lore, is for “blank” to be pulled into the void
if that is the case than yes Menneck-B would be in the void as well
but i remember insatnces of them using the term to refer to a galaxy just going dark
maybe im misremembering
2 Likes
I hate this^ word in regards to space-related things… Like EVERYTHING else is cosmology that we haven’t actually reached or directly experimented with, we assume that, just because our math has worked for us so far, it is correct in everything. We don’t know what black holes REALLY do. We do NOT know what really happens when a star dies. All we have is a fancy word for “we don’t know, but this is what we THINK will happen”…
Damn it, science… There is no shame in admitting that you don’t know something…
1 Like
its like a 99.5% FOR SURE thing
but if no one has directly seen it happen
then you have to
all of science is about nothing being 100%
2 Likes
I have a sudden urge to play Kleese.
4 Likes
Cam
I just thought of an interesting way to think about it
Our Planet (every planet with a core for that matter) is filled with highly condensed volatile energy
whenever even the small pockets of energy (not even directly connected to the core) gets an incredibly small chance to escape it explodes outward and devastates the local area.
that would be a volcano
or in actuality about 0.01% - 0.05% of the total thermal energy in our planet
now imagine if absolutely nothing was holding it back
1 Like
And the proof of this is where? Where is the visual proof that we don’t use based on math?
Sure; all i’m saying is that i don’t like it when science throws out statistics based on THEORY. If we had actually conducted experiments with these things, i’d not say a word; but we don’t… We CAN’T yet… Science has no problem teaching people theories based on stuff that is not even within a reachable distance though, and THAT is what i have a problem with, because it is based on faith, just like religion.
“We don’t believe in God because we can’t prove he exists.”
“We believe that this is what we have dubbed a black hole does, even though we CAN’T prove it.”
See the hypocrisy? I’m not trying to say that religion deserves more faith because of this, by the way; it is just the most prevalent and easy to use example. I am all for using math and science as a means to explain what we don’t know. I just hate it when science says “this is nearly proven even though we haven’t experimented with it”. Facts ARE black and white, and something is either true or it isn’t. There is no 99.5% fact; there is just theory and conjecture, and Science needs to be humble about it…
1 Like
above
am i right? 
do i win? 
^^^^ seeking validation
1 Like
i believe true science is
and scientists who are desperate for validity are not
1 Like
Then cosmology is not a true science, because even you must admit that the overwhelming majority is based on conjecture. I’m not trying to discredit science, because i trust it for the most part; i just hate arrogant assumptions.
Whoops, sorry. No, i’d say not, because your volcano anology is still based wholly on the assumption that the large-scale would be identical to the small-scale. Who’s to say that our atmosphere wouldn’t present a variable that would keep the planet stable instead of bursting to bits. Also, who’s to say that all of Earth’s volcanic energy would ever all erupt at once? There is no evidence to suggest that the large-scale would ever happen, because there is no precedent that we have witnessed. Now, if Mars was to explode…
1 Like